On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> .slider > .box {
>> left: 0;
>> transition: left 1s play(bounce 1s);
>> }
>>
>> If I understand this right, both would happen at the same time. We
>> also
>> need a syntax to have them play sequentially. Perhaps a comma?
>
> What's the use case for playing things sequentially?
>
> I ask not because I don't think it's potentially useful, but to
> hopefully capture a better idea of precisely what the desired behavior
> is, so we can properly solve the use-case. For example, if we want to
> be able to chain animations arbitrarily, then this sort of thing would
> be best addressed by doing that directly, and perhaps defining some
> way to composite animations together sequentially. On the other hand,
> if the only useful thing we can find is to play a single animation
> after the transition is done, then this can be done easily by putting
> a delay on the animation equal to the duration of the transition.
>
>> .slider > .box {
>> left: 0;
>> transition: left 1s, play(bounce 1s);
>> }
>
> That won't work - commas are used to separate multiple transitions.
> The way you have it now would simply define a second, useless
> transition (useless because the default transition-duration is 0,
> which *I think* doesn't cause a transition).
One use case that may be possible now but it appears would be hard is
simply a sequence of transitions. My fall back example is a box that
moves up and then left. I don't see how to do that with transitions
even using delays.
Remember that @keyframes are absolute currently so can not really be
used to define how a transition goes from the current state to the
final state (without repeating the to and from values inside the
@keyframes spec.
A sequence of animations (thinking in terms of @keyframes) doesn't
excite me too much but it probably does other people.
Perry